Rethinking Liberal Democracy: Prelude to Totalitarianism,” Journal of Liberty and International Affairs 1, No
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ASPJ Africa & Francophonie - 2nd Quarter 2018 Rethinking Liberal Democracy Prelude to totalitarianism ISABEL DAVID, PHD* The Theoretical Foundations of Liberal Democracy In the long course of human evolution and political experimentation, liberal democracy, especially after the events of 1989, has come to be seen as the best political system, or, at least, as Winston Churchill put it, “the worst form of gov ernment, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”1 In fact, we seem to have reached the so-called end of history and of all ideologies. By portraying itself as the only valid way of thinking, what this language entails is, in fact, the obliteration of alternative modes of thinking, and thus the effective dominance of this particular ideology.The effect of this mechanics is self-evident: the persistence of one particular form of thinking self reproduces and, through repetition, generates its own legitimacy. Tocqueville has brilliantly described its essence: in a democratic society, where the passion for equality is the prevalent and irresistible dogma, all people have to work, which means that all live in a state of perpetual agitation.2 This state of affairs is simply incompatible with contem plation and its ultimate end—the search for truth—if by no other reason than that thinking requires time, something which is lacking in such societies. In other words, democracies have no leisure class, precisely that which has traditionally dedicated itself to these matters. In the absence of theoretical concerns, people turn to their material well-being and live for the present, a context in which sci ence comes to exist not per se, but only possesses a utilitarian rationale that merely conceives of its immediate and practical application. This prevalence of the economy, of the technical sphere, and the advent of a government of things, instead of a government of men, seems to be intimately con *Isabel David is an Assistant Professor and a Research Fellow at the Orient Institute and at the Centre for Administration and Public Policies, School of Social and Political Science, University of Lisbon Isabel David, “Rethinking Liberal Democracy: Prelude to totalitarianism,” Journal of Liberty and International Affairs 1, no. 1 (2015), UDC 327 - ISSN 1857-9760. Published online by the Institute for Research and European Studies – Bitola at www.e-jlia.com 41 42 ASPJ AFRICA & FRANCOPHONIE nected with a qualitative change which took place in the 16th century, namely, the Reformation.The most important break in Western unity was especially espoused by the most economically developed areas, by those most favored by natural re sources and by the wealthiest towns of the Holy Roman Empire; in one word, by the bourgeois way of life. The emphasis on earthly salvation through work and economic rationalism, as Max Weber put it, instead of after-life salvation, and the rejection of transcendentalism, seems to compose a materialistic picture duly in compatible with the spiritual and ascetic essence of Christianity.3 Once imple mented, this system tends to develop a legitimacy that increases in proportion to its stability. These “ethical maxims,”4 having penetrated the cultural realm, gave rise to an ideological foundation—liberalism—traceable to the writings of John Locke, and later continued by Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant and David Hume. John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government5 were as much a reaction against Sir Robert Filmer’s Patriarch6 and Stuart’s absolutism as they were a eulogy of Whig interests, associated with emergent industrial lobbies and wealthy merchants.7 Hence his fierce defense of the doctrine of unalienable natu ral rights—individual liberty, life, property—that constituted the inviolable pri vate sphere of a civil society, conceived as a domain in which there could be no state interference. The cornerstone of his theoretical edifice lay in the social com pact, based on consent and choice, as the means to create a body politic. In An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he proposed the famous tabula rasa doc trine, arguing that there are no innate universal moral notions—speculative and practical principles—in the human mind.8 Rather, moral principles, along with faith and revelation, require reasoning and discourse, in order that their truth is discovered. In fact, all knowledge begins with experience, through the senses, and must be made dependent on the end one wants to achieve. Among the ideas which are received from sensation and reflection are pain and pleasure, in refer ence to which good and evil can be measured. Hence, that which is called good is that which is apt to cause or increase pleasure, or diminish pain. Evil, on the contrary, is that which is apt to produce or increase any pain, or diminish any pleasure in us. Happiness consists in the maximum pleasure we are capable of, and misery the maximum pain.9 Hence, principles such as virtue are generally ap proved, not because they are innate, but because they are profitable to each indi vidual. It was with Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations that freedom decisively ac quired its markedly economic tone.10 For him, people’s actions are guided by the utilitarian consideration of self-interest, in a supposedly well ordered competitive system, guided by an invisible hand.11 Jeremy Bentham was responsible for the LIBERAL DEMOCRACY 43 doctrine of utilitarianism as such.12 As for Locke, for Bentham pain and pleasure are the sovereign masters which decide what we ought to do and determine right and wrong. Based on these foundations, the principle of utility “approves or disap proves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in ques tion.”13 The final goal of the system thus created is felicity, by the hands of reason and law. In fact, the principle of utility, as the true source of morality, is aimed not only at individual action, but also at government action. The individual is the best judge of his own utility, due to man’s reasonable nature. In this sense, the art of directing a man’s own actions is named private ethics, or art of self government and the sum of the interests of the several members who compose the community forms the interest of that community.The art of directing people’s actions to hap piness and augmenting it through the law is called the art of government. In this context, punishment, which is an evil in itself, should only be admitted if it can exclude some greater evil. John Stuart Mill elaborated on the concept of utilitarianism, considering general happiness as a moral standard and the ultimate appeal on all ethical ques tions.14 It is anchored on the natural social feelings of mankind, and is, for that reason, the most important and desirable end. Money, fame and power are com ponents of happiness. Hence, the best government is that which is most conducive to progress. Mill mitigates this understanding of utilitarianism, by advocating the superiority of intellectual and moral pleasures, with a view to a “higher mode of existence,” reflecting the distinctive human faculty of reason.15 Here resides the justification for the absolute sphere of human sovereignty in matters of lifestyle, inner consciousness, personal conduct and opinion—and hence unhindered indi vidualism16—in which the state has no power to intervene, even with an ethical purpose, to restore moral standards—the “despotism of custom,”—save in those cases where the aim is to prevent harm done to others. In his view, liberty is the only trustworthy source of improvement.Thus, each individual, bringing with him an endless diversity of experiences,is a possible independent centre of improvement. The role of the state, in this context, should be that of a central depository, circulator and diffuser of these experiments. Immanuel Kant’s philosophy rests on an optimistic view of the human condition, based on the assumption that men are originally predisposed to good and able to perfect themselves.17 Hence, morality can be built on the postulation that man is a free agent who can bind himself through reason alone to laws, therefore not needing either religion or any other incentive than the law to apprehend and do his duty. Right and wrong are deter mined solely by reason. In this context, the categorical imperative is that which represents an action as necessary in and of itself, being able to ignore all ends. 44 ASPJ AFRICA & FRANCOPHONIE There is only one categorical imperative: “Act so that the maxim of thy will can always at the same time hold good as a principle of universal legislation.”18 Thus, what each of us calls good must be desired by all rational men, which means that a universal kingdom of ends can be conceived, binding all rational beings by com mon laws. The final outcome will be that each one of us will treat others, in every case, as an end, and never as a means. For David Hume, knowledge comes from experience, through the senses.19 This is the case of morality, which depends on subjective perceptions and appe tites. Thus, good and evil can be distinguished according to the impressions they produce: if the impression is agreeable, then something is good; if, on the contrary, the impression is uneasy, we are in the presence of evil. There are, therefore, no objective moral standards. Similarly, justice does not exist per se, but rather arises artificially from education and human convention to remedy some inconveniences such as selfishness and lack of generosity.